I don't know if it is just them. I bought Red Faction Guerrilla for $10 new at a Wal-mart. Saved me about $8 over buying it used at Gamestop.Worgen said:
Bargains Are for Cheaters
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Been hearing about game. Its actually not part of the problem. They price pre-owned sales fairly, trade-ins fairly, and new copies fairly. They likely took a loss on that £10 sale.tunderball said:
The more I hear, the more It seems the issue of retailers being "parasites and thieves" (to quote a thread closer to where this actually started) is utterly exclusive to gamestop. To say, the issue isn't you selling your stuff on ebay or amazon. Starting to think the reason no one comes out and says, clearly and concisely, "gamestop are a bunch of fucking theives. Everyone else is cool," is that would be slander, and they'd get sued, and gamestop would get even more money from being a completely worthless tumor on the left ventricle of the video game industry.
Something I haven't heard anyone talk about:
The game being commented on is charging for online play. I think this is perfectly valid. Online play requires powerful servers, bandwidth, etc. that is IN ADDITION to the original development cost of the game. If you want to use their resources, you should really have to pay for it. The original buyer of the game paid for it, why shouldn't the used buyer of the game also have to pay for it?
The game being commented on is charging for online play. I think this is perfectly valid. Online play requires powerful servers, bandwidth, etc. that is IN ADDITION to the original development cost of the game. If you want to use their resources, you should really have to pay for it. The original buyer of the game paid for it, why shouldn't the used buyer of the game also have to pay for it?
I do think that people bashing used game sales is just as ridiculous (probably a bit less) than people bashing libraries. If you see all my other posts in this thread, used games sales do no harm to the developers because of price thresholds on used game consumers. They're not going to buy a $60 game under most circumstances, whether they want it or not. They're going to pirate it, borrow it from a friend, go in on it with somebody else, get it on craigslist, or something. But they're not going to pay $60 for it.Zerbye said:
Libraries are places to store the knowledge and history of our world. Games are part of that knowledge and history, and if the library wants to buy a game and rent it out, that's their prerogative. You have to deal with some things though like a reservation waiting list, people not returning them on time, etc. If you go rent the game from the library, the developer got paid for that product, and it's just as if somebody passed it around to their friends afterward or sold it to Gamestop used. If you get your games from the library, you're a smart consumer.
they'd make a lot more money if they just go full digital distribution, knock down the price since they're no longer paying manufacturing costs for the physical media, packaging, and whatever content goes on said packaging. Then institute Shamus' idea of consistent depreciation in cost so that you can buy a game you weren't that interested in two or three years down the line to see what you missed out on.
I had forgotten about that deal, not that I had the money (or interest) to get Darksiders.Worgen said:
But publishers don't reduce the price of the next game if their previous game made them *MASSIVE* piles of money.Catalyst6 said:
Do you think Activision is going to reduce the price of the next CoD title just because they've made shitloads of money from MW2? Nope, they're going to release it at the same price, if not more, and ***** about piracy.
... Isn't that post a little outside what most people expect from this place? "lol it no cost monies 2 maek games!!" ?ionveau said:
I mean, really? I thought people here knew enough about the industry to not say anything like that. Publishers invest millions into game development, pricing is based around seeing a return for all involved.
You know that acitivision raised their cut on modern warfare 2 (mw2 will always be mechwarrior 2, dirty heathen) in hopes of getting more than 15 or 20 percent from 11 million units sold, right? I realize once we start speaking in the hundreds of millions, most companies are just expected to deal with only a 10% payout for doing nothing but providing the initial investment (else they will be forever known as greedy and evil), but why should most of the proceeds of a successful game go to the retailers?RvLeshrac said:
I think a big part of this problem is that Penny Arcade and other groups involved in this round of the debate on the publishers sides are former fan-friendly groups that have sold out. "PAX" has made it clear that Penny Arcade isn't really "our" voice anymore despite the fact that some people see them that way (and they can still be pretty funny).
The part of the equasion that is being missed here is that we're talking about an industry that is making billions of dollars in profits! Oh sure, there are game companies that do go out of business, but that happens in every area, no matter how successful. This whole thing is motivated by greed, not any real need to see this extra money in order to have it invested in producing more games. It's simply producers deciding that instead of simply making a hundred million dollars in profit, they could have TWO hundred million dollars in profit if somehow those pesky used game sales would wind up coming into their coffers at full price. The bean counters who came up with that school of thought are also detached from reality because they are working from the assumption that people have that much money, and would find the profit worthwhile for the full price (as you pointed out), but simply are not doing it because of the alternative.
Also understand that Penny Arcade is currently lying through it's teeth. It's presenting the used game sales as hurting developers, who wind up not being rewarded for their hard work. That right there is a lie, because it's not universally true, games are funded in differant ways, and typically a developer is being paid a wage or salary to make the game. What typically happens is that a producer wants to make money, so he hands the money to a developer to produce a game so HE can make a profit. The money to make the game is their salarys and such, after all the primary cost is human resources. When you hear "this game had a budget of X" that is the money the developers received to make it, that was their pay in most cases. If a game cost like forty million dollars, that means that the producer needs to make more than that to see a profit... the developer is now out of the equasion, it's all about the producer.
Now, there are alternative arrangements where you say have a company acting as it's own producer, or game developers with an idea borrowing money and then relying on making a profit to pay off the loan with anything in excess of that loan being their profit, and so on. But that is not always the case, and it's being presented that way to guilt us consumers.
The problem I have with the whole situation is that while games do fail and take companies with them, is that there are billions of dollars in profit being made overall with the used game market flourishing (as I said before). What kind of sympathy could they possibly expect me to have?
As far as the price scale goes, I will say that I think the problem there is that the industry thinks that by allowing the media to depreciate in cost as fast as movies do will encourage more people to wait for the deals. Keeping the prices high discourages people to play the waiting game, and that's also part of why they don't like used games.
See, their logic is easy to understand, it's just very negative since your dealing with greed of the absolute worst kind, coming from an industry that managed to avoid those kinds of attitudes for a very long time. The game industry always wanted to make a profit, but now making a profit, even a good one is not enough, it comes down to them wanting every possible blood soaked dime they can squeeze out of the consumers.
The part of the equasion that is being missed here is that we're talking about an industry that is making billions of dollars in profits! Oh sure, there are game companies that do go out of business, but that happens in every area, no matter how successful. This whole thing is motivated by greed, not any real need to see this extra money in order to have it invested in producing more games. It's simply producers deciding that instead of simply making a hundred million dollars in profit, they could have TWO hundred million dollars in profit if somehow those pesky used game sales would wind up coming into their coffers at full price. The bean counters who came up with that school of thought are also detached from reality because they are working from the assumption that people have that much money, and would find the profit worthwhile for the full price (as you pointed out), but simply are not doing it because of the alternative.
Also understand that Penny Arcade is currently lying through it's teeth. It's presenting the used game sales as hurting developers, who wind up not being rewarded for their hard work. That right there is a lie, because it's not universally true, games are funded in differant ways, and typically a developer is being paid a wage or salary to make the game. What typically happens is that a producer wants to make money, so he hands the money to a developer to produce a game so HE can make a profit. The money to make the game is their salarys and such, after all the primary cost is human resources. When you hear "this game had a budget of X" that is the money the developers received to make it, that was their pay in most cases. If a game cost like forty million dollars, that means that the producer needs to make more than that to see a profit... the developer is now out of the equasion, it's all about the producer.
Now, there are alternative arrangements where you say have a company acting as it's own producer, or game developers with an idea borrowing money and then relying on making a profit to pay off the loan with anything in excess of that loan being their profit, and so on. But that is not always the case, and it's being presented that way to guilt us consumers.
The problem I have with the whole situation is that while games do fail and take companies with them, is that there are billions of dollars in profit being made overall with the used game market flourishing (as I said before). What kind of sympathy could they possibly expect me to have?
As far as the price scale goes, I will say that I think the problem there is that the industry thinks that by allowing the media to depreciate in cost as fast as movies do will encourage more people to wait for the deals. Keeping the prices high discourages people to play the waiting game, and that's also part of why they don't like used games.
See, their logic is easy to understand, it's just very negative since your dealing with greed of the absolute worst kind, coming from an industry that managed to avoid those kinds of attitudes for a very long time. The game industry always wanted to make a profit, but now making a profit, even a good one is not enough, it comes down to them wanting every possible blood soaked dime they can squeeze out of the consumers.
Sorry, red haze after this point...Therumancer said:
Why are retailers your voice?
... read the rest of your post... still red haze.
Where do you think the money comes from to pay developer salaries? The moon? No, right now, in most cases, it comes from publishers. If publishers see a larger return, developers see a larger return, meaning both can do more with the next game.
FINALLY, someone who speaks some sense. The retailer has already paid the publisher for X amount of games. Those games are now the sole property of the retailer to do as they please, either to sell them new, used, or just give them out for free as coffee mug coasters.
The publisher no longer becomes a factor in the equation once the exchange is made, and any publisher who complains about used game sales would do well to look into self-retailing their own games via physical or digital copies (ala EA, Valve, StarDock, etc).
I worked for Future Shop (Best Buy) for a couple of months and in the information for each product, you can see the price we sell it and the cost. I can tell you they make between 5 and 10$ profit on each game.RvLeshrac said:
If every game is resold an average of 2 times, that means the publisher only sees a return for a third of the total sales.lockeslylcrit said:
How is that right?
Also, "cutting out the middleman" is expensive. Most publishers keep their money tied up in projects, most houses are kinda depending upon catching a new project. So... which development house would you like to see end so EA can open it's own digital distribution service?
New games are not the same as Used.lomylithruldor said:
A New game is purchased for a set price, from the publisher/distributor, and then sold at a set price.
A Used game is purchased for a variable price, usually between $1-$10, and then sold at a variable price, usually 300%-1000% of the buy-back price.
They aren't my voice is that of a consumer as is that of most gamers with a bit of common sense.Cynical skeptic said:
All of the complaints being made by the industry are basically all about the producers (the guys investing the money) who are already making billions in profits, wanting to make even more money.
I fail to see why you should be seeing red over my criticism of Penny Arcade, read what they are saying. They are acting like the used game market is actually hurting developers, and that people buying used games are doing the equivilent of stealing food from their mouths. Kind of outrageous especially when the developers typically don't share in any of the profits from the sales of a game, that's the producer. The Penny Arcade innuendo of "well if you actually met any developers you'd have a differant opinion" (or something like that) is pretty ridiculous.
I stand by my insinuation, because the guys from Penny Arcade should know better if anyone does given how long they have been involved. The thing is though that Penny Arcade is one of the web's big gaming success stories, it's worth a lot of money now. They aren't making that money through site donations, selling T-shirts, and the like. Going by things like PAX they seem to be making their money nowadays from the industry itself by acting as a major vehicle for them. It only makes sense the side they take is going to be where their fortune is coming from. To jump on the gaming industry for being greedy on things like this, would be akin to biting the hand that feeds them.
Hey, sorry if your a fan, but I can only call it like I see it. As a consumer I want the best possible deal, oftentimes that means used games, especially with the current economy. It would be one thing if the used game market was actually hurting the gaming industry, but it's not since they are reporting billions of dollars in profits. I would be bloody surprised if Penny Arcade is somehow oblivious to that.
Plus I'll also say that I am somewhat irritated with the industry as a whole because it operates much like a criminal organization, at least by US standards. While unrelated to the topic at hand (at least directly), consider that in the US gas companies are under constant investigation for not competing with each other the way they are supposed to, and also for setting prices. This kind of cartel behavior is illegal in the US. The game industry behaves the same way, but so far the goverment has not had it's eye caught. Think about it, all new games irregardless of their development costs, cost the same thing. We have standard prices. When a big title like "Modern Warfare 2" comes out, other companies re-arrange their release schedule to avoid direct competition. You do not for example see say "Bioshock 2" having it's price lowered by $20 to try and tempt sales away from "Modern Warfare 2". The US *IS* capitolist but part of the ideal is also enforced competition, to make companies strive to produce the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices. You don't see that in the gaming industry. This is one of the reasons why I have so little sympathy for it in most debates. Heck, unlike Hollywood has in the past, it won't even fight against censorship and to have games labeled properly, very few companies will push the limits of an "R" rating and if challenged tend to back right down (though this gets even more off topic).
The bottom line is that consumers are all that matters to me, I could care less for the industry or retailers at the moment. Both are pretty much out to try and bleed me, so why should I have any sympathy for them when they decide to cry about something?
Actually, I'll disagree with Shamus. Games are substantially identical to a lot of used products that are susceptible to wear and tear. A car is "used" the instant you drive it off the lot, and until it's old enough to have components breaking, it pretty much does the same thing for you that you wanted in the first place, so it hasn't lost any of its value to you. However, during that time, it'll have dropped in value to anyone else by half or more.
So games do actually fit the model of consumable product.
However, game makers are trying to sell EVERYONE a new game every few months, whereas new car makers only try to keep ahead of demand. So of course their market is glutted, and there's a crapload of perfectly good few-month-old games out there. What's the difference in quality or playability between a game that's 1 day old and a game that's 6 months old? Not a lot!
Long story short, it's their mindless greed that's creating the situation they're in, and it's not going to go away because we buy new games instead of slightly less new ones. It will go away when the game company executives meet with the game company investors and say "Look, the rise in games fueled a great rush. We had a good time and made lots of money. But we didn't take product life cycle into account because we cared more about making all the money we could RIGHT NOW than creating a sustainable business, and so we've stuffed the market chock-friggin-full of games that look and play great.
So we're going to have to slow down for awhile, let those games get old to people, so we can then bring out new games that are perceivably more attractive to play than the old ones, and then people will buy them again. We'll see you in like, a year or so? Yeah, a year sounds about right. Thanks for understanding!"
Which isn't going to happen of course. Instead, they're going to try to wag the dog by spending money on DRM hooks that turn into "games as a service" controls. In other words, they'll start selling you that brand new game with only like half of the content they have, then sell you the rest, then the rest. And then put in an item shop. Into every single game.
You watch. It'll happen
So games do actually fit the model of consumable product.
However, game makers are trying to sell EVERYONE a new game every few months, whereas new car makers only try to keep ahead of demand. So of course their market is glutted, and there's a crapload of perfectly good few-month-old games out there. What's the difference in quality or playability between a game that's 1 day old and a game that's 6 months old? Not a lot!
Long story short, it's their mindless greed that's creating the situation they're in, and it's not going to go away because we buy new games instead of slightly less new ones. It will go away when the game company executives meet with the game company investors and say "Look, the rise in games fueled a great rush. We had a good time and made lots of money. But we didn't take product life cycle into account because we cared more about making all the money we could RIGHT NOW than creating a sustainable business, and so we've stuffed the market chock-friggin-full of games that look and play great.
So we're going to have to slow down for awhile, let those games get old to people, so we can then bring out new games that are perceivably more attractive to play than the old ones, and then people will buy them again. We'll see you in like, a year or so? Yeah, a year sounds about right. Thanks for understanding!"
Which isn't going to happen of course. Instead, they're going to try to wag the dog by spending money on DRM hooks that turn into "games as a service" controls. In other words, they'll start selling you that brand new game with only like half of the content they have, then sell you the rest, then the rest. And then put in an item shop. Into every single game.
You watch. It'll happen
Well, A: I don't give a shit about penny arcade. The issue here is "retailers vs video game industry." They're using their position to pull a bit of punditry on something they feel strongly about. Go them. If not for the rest of the internet sucking their cocks, I likely would never see a comic or post made by them.Therumancer said:
As far as everything in that last half of your post... bollacks.
All entertainment industries operate as such. Entertainment is a zero-sum game. You don't want to have to compete with a product set to sell 15 million copies even if your product is also set to sell the same amount. Most gamers only buy one or two games a month. Which means both titles split their sales. Lose-lose. So, wait a month and have a higher chance of selling to people who didn't give a shit about the last month's big title and the people who are already done with it. It happens in film, theater, music... everywhere.
Now, I'm not saying theres a clear-cut good guy in this situation. This is three generally shitty groups of people fucking each other over in every way possible while the consumer can do nothing but wait for games to occasionally fall out of the Looney Tunes style "fight" cloud. Three groups defined only by their contribution to the video game industry. Developers having the most, publishers having the middle, retailers having almost none.